No objection to working full hours, it happens 99% of the time now anyway, so it's no skin off my nose. But also expect no leeway on the minor duty over runs and enhanced hours/SRATCOH busts which I experience from time to time. It can most definitely become a two way street, with the full backing of legislation to report such instances on my part.
I would suggest that anybody thinking of similar action takes expert advice from the union or elsewhere before doing so. Mrs Thatcher's legislation isn't very specific about what constitutes industrial action and taking any action that may be defined as unofficial industrial action would be very unwise.
The AAVA agreement is voluntary ... therefore if I withdraw my participation, what will I be charged with in legislation ?
Attending meetings or projects on my rostered days off are not compulsory ... therefore if I withdraw my participation, what will I be charged with in legislation ?
Holding validations over the MUR, which I do not require to hold since they are not compulsory, might present competency maintenance issues for me and in accordance with the Local Competency Scheme agreed with the Regulator I am quite entitled as a licence holder to restrict my competencies to the MUR ... therefore if I withdraw my extra validations, what will I be charged with in legislation ?
Deciding that a sector must be either adequately manned or alternatively has an appropriate regulation put in place to contain traffic to a safe single person operating traffic volume is not only wise, but also well within my rights to expect as a licence holder ... or for me to expect to provide to my staff if I am carrying out supervisor duties. Therefore if I insist on agreed staffing measures, which have presumably been put in place for safety reasons, what will I be charged with in legislation ?
I can't wait for my local management to threaten me with something all because I am abiding by the detail of my working contract and rules and procedures which have been agreed with SRG.
That is not industrial action per se. It is not 'throwing their toys out of the pram'. It is that person saying that they will no longer assist a company that has drastically reduced their potential pension (deferred pay), by doing things for nothing.
That's exactly my philosophy in a nutshell. I'll abide by the majority vote, whatever that may be, and live with the pension decisions and the next steps which occur. But if I end up being penalised in the long run, then I see no need to continue to go the extra mile to help out and continue to provide the bonuses and give an easy ride to those in the company who see fit to make my terms and conditions worse. They have had many many years of the benefits due to NATS staff goodwill, meaning that the drastic staff shortages and resource issues have been papered over with relatively cheap labour and no impetus on them to resolve the underlying issues. And now they expect me to continue to help them out of that hole for the odd crumb while they screw around with something which is a major long term benefit of working for NATS ? Find someone else who is gullible
